The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Association of Patient Priorities–Aligned Decision-Making With Patient Outcomes and Ambulatory Health Care Burden Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Health care may be burdensome and of uncertain benefit for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Aligning health care with an individual's health priorities may improve outcomes and reduce burden. Objective: To evaluate whether patient priorities care (PPC) is associated with a perception of more goal-directed and less burdensome care compared with usual care (UC). Design, Setting, and Participants: Nonrandomized clinical trial with propensity adjustment conducted at 1 PPC and 1 UC site of a Connecticut multisite primary care practice that provides care to almost 15% of the state's residents. Participants included 163 adults aged 65 years or older who had 3 or more chronic conditions cared for by 10 primary care practitioners (PCPs) trained in PPC and 203 similar patients who received UC from 7 PCPs not trained in PPC. Participant enrollment occurred between February 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018; follow-up extended for up to 9 months (ended September 30, 2018). Interventions: Patient priorities care, an approach to decision-making that includes patients' identifying their health priorities (ie, specific health outcome goals and health care preferences) and clinicians aligning their decision-making to achieve these health priorities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included change in patients' Older Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (O-PACIC), CollaboRATE, and Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) scores; electronic health record documentation of decision-making based on patients' health priorities; medications and self-management tasks added or stopped; and diagnostic tests, referrals, and procedures ordered or avoided. Results: Of the 366 patients, 235 (64.2%) were female and 350 (95.6%) were white. Compared with the UC group, the PPC group was older (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.6] vs 77.6 [7.6] years) and had lower physical and mental health scores. At follow-up, PPC participants reported a 5-point greater decrease in TBQ score than those who received UC (ß [SE], -5.0 [2.04]; P = .01) using a weighted regression model with inverse probability of PCP assignment weights; no differences were seen in O-PACIC or CollaboRATE scores. Health priorities-based decisions were mentioned in clinical visit notes for 108 of 163 (66.3%) PPC vs 0 of 203 (0%) UC participants. Compared with UC patients, PPC patients were more likely to have medications stopped (weighted comparison, 52.0% vs 33.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.95) and less likely to have self-management tasks (57.5% vs 62.1%; AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84) and diagnostic tests (80.8% vs 86.4%; AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) ordered. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that patient priorities care may be associated with reduced treatment burden and unwanted health care. Care aligned with patients' priorities may be feasible and effective for older adults with MCCs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03600389.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x · Cited by 25,553
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,736
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2002) · Journal For Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2002.tb00463.x · Cited by 8,483
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6607 · Cited by 4,495
Curran, G. M., Bauer, M., Mittman, B., Pyne, J. M., & Stetler, C. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182408812 · Cited by 4,058
Using Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation
Rubin, D. B. (2001) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1023/a:1020363010465 · Cited by 2,228
Cited by
Chronological vs Biological Age in Interventional Cardiology
Damluji, A. A., Nanna, M. G., Rymer, J., Kochar, A., Lowenstern, A., Baron, S. J., Narins, C. R., & Alkhouli, M. (2024) · JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.01.284 · Cited by 53
Brunner, E., Chen, C.-Y. A., Klein, T., Maust, D., Mazer-Amirshahi, M., Mecca, M., Najera, D., Ogbonna, C., Rajneesh, K. F., Roll, E., et al. (2025) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-025-09499-2 · Cited by 51
“49 When determining the balance of risks and benefits, clinicians should consider the following: • How significant are the potential benefits?”
Mohile, S., Dumontier, C., Mian, H., Loh, K. P., Williams, G. R., Wildes, T. M., Boyd, K., Ramsdale, E., Pyne, S., Magnuson, A., et al. (2020) · Journal of Geriatric Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2020.04.010 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Tinetti, M. E., Naik, A. D., Dindo, L., Costello, D. M., Esterson, J., Geda, M., Rosen, J., Hernandez-Bigos, K., Smith, C. D., Ouellet, G. M., Kang, G., Lee, Y., & Blaum, C.
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-12-01
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1688
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2978849307
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 15.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association of Patient Priorities–Aligned Decision-Making With Patient Outcomes and Ambulatory Health Care Burden Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4235
- The paper
- Tinetti, M. E., Naik, A. D., Dindo, L., Costello, D. M., Esterson, J., Geda, M., Rosen, J., Hernandez-Bigos, K., Smith, C. D., Ouellet, G. M., Kang, G., Lee, Y., & Blaum, C. (2019). Association of Patient Priorities–Aligned Decision-Making With Patient Outcomes and Ambulatory Health Care Burden Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4235
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.